{"query": "Please help me summarize this government report.", "gt": "The President of the United States has available certain powers that may be exercised in the event that the nation is threatened by crisis, exigency, or emergency circumstances (other than natural disasters, war, or near-war situations). Such powers may be stated explicitly or implied by the Constitution, assumed by the Chief Executive to be permissible constitutionally, or inferred from or specified by statute. Through legislation, Congress has made a great many delegations of authority in this regard over the past 230 years.\nThere are, however, limits and restraints upon the President in his exercise of emergency powers. With the exception of the habeas corpus clause, the Constitution makes no allowance for the suspension of any of its provisions during a national emergency. Disputes over the constitutionality or legality of the exercise of emergency powers are judicially reviewable. Both the judiciary and Congress, as co-equal branches, can restrain the executive regarding emergency powers. So can public opinion. Since 1976, the President has been subject to certain procedural formalities in utilizing some statutorily delegated emergency authority.\nThe National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. \u00a7\u00a71601-1651) eliminated or modified some statutory grants of emergency authority, required the President to formally declare the existence of a national emergency and to specify what statutory authority activated by the declaration would be used, and provided Congress a means to countermand the President's declaration and the activated authority being sought. The development of this regulatory statute and subsequent declarations of national emergency are reviewed in this report.", "prompt": "[INST]<<SYS>>\nNow you are given a very long document. Please follow the instruction after this document. These instructions may include summarizing a document, answering questions based on the document, or writing a required paragraph. \n<</SYS>>\n\nDocument is as follows. {} Instruction: {} \nAnswer this question with 248 words.[/INST]", "llama2-13b-chat-4k_pred": "  Sure! Here is a summary of the government report in 248 words:\n\nThe report discusses the powers of the President of the United States in responding to crises, exigencies, or emergency circumstances. The President can use various powers, including those derived from the Constitution and statutory law, to address national emergencies. The President can issue proclamations to declare a national emergency and activate standby emergency authority. Congress can modify, rescind, or render dormant such delegated emergency authority. The report also discusses the history of emergency powers in the United States, including the use of emergency powers by Presidents Abraham Lincoln and Franklin D. Roosevelt. The report concludes by highlighting the importance of balancing the President's emergency powers with the need for congressional oversight and approval.\n\nI hope this summary is helpful! Let me know if you have any further questions.", "evaluation": "rouge"}
{"query": "Please help me summarize this government report.", "gt": "The Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) requires U.S. transportation fuel to contain a minimum volume of renewable fuel. The RFS\u2014established by the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58; EPAct05) and expanded in 2007 by the Energy Independence and Security Act (P.L. 110-140; EISA)\u2014began with 4 billion gallons of renewable fuel in 2006 and aims to ascend to 36 billion gallons in 2022. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has statutory authority to determine the volume amounts after 2022.\nThe total renewable fuel statutory target consists of both conventional biofuel and advanced biofuel. Since 2014, the total renewable fuel statutory target has not been met, with the advanced biofuel portion falling below the statutory target by a large margin since 2015. Going forward, it is unlikely that the United States will meet the total renewable fuel target as outlined in statute.\nEPA administers the RFS and is responsible for several tasks. For instance, within statutory criteria EPA evaluates which renewable fuels are eligible for the RFS program. Also, EPA establishes the amount of renewable fuel that will be required for the coming year based on fuel supply and other conditions although waiver authority in the statute allows the EPA Administrator to reduce the statutory volumes if necessary. Further, the statute requires that the EPA Administrator \"reset\" the RFS\u2014whereby the fuel volumes required for future years are modified by the Administrator if certain conditions are met. EPA monitors compliance for the RFS using a system of tradable credits referred to as renewable identification numbers (RINs).\nCongress has expressed ongoing interest in the RFS, particularly as the mandate relates to other legislative efforts (e.g., Reid Vapor Pressure requirements for ethanol-gasoline fuel blends containing greater than 10% ethanol, a national octane standard) and about oversight of the RIN market, among other things. Some assert it is time to amend or repeal the RFS, while others contend the best course of action is to maintain the status quo. For instance, some Members contend the RFS hurts consumers by creating an artificial market for ethanol. Others see ethanol as a part of a competitive energy strategy.\nCongress may also express interest in how the EPA Administrator applies the RFS \"reset\" authority. EPA reports that in early 2019 it will issue a rulemaking that proposes to modify\u2014or \"reset\"\u2014the cellulosic biofuel, advanced biofuel, and total renewable fuel volume targets for the years 2020-2022.", "prompt": "[INST]<<SYS>>\nNow you are given a very long document. Please follow the instruction after this document. These instructions may include summarizing a document, answering questions based on the document, or writing a required paragraph. \n<</SYS>>\n\nDocument is as follows. {} Instruction: {} \nAnswer this question with 394 words.[/INST]", "llama2-13b-chat-4k_pred": "  The Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) is a program established by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to increase the use of renewable fuels in transportation. The program sets annual volume requirements for four categories of renewable fuels: conventional biofuel, advanced biofuel, cellulosic biofuel, and biomass-based diesel. The RFS has faced challenges in implementation, including delays in approving fuel pathways, limited federal assistance, and concerns about the impact of fluctuating crude oil and gasoline prices on biofuel demand. Additionally, some stakeholders have expressed concerns about the transparency of the market for renewable fuel credits and the impact of small refinery exemptions on biofuel demand. The EPA has used its waiver authority to reduce the statutory volume requirements for cellulosic biofuel, total advanced biofuel, and total renewable fuel. The 2019 final rule for the RFS set volume requirements that are less than the volumes called for in statute but greater than the previous year's volumes. The rule also set the biomass-based diesel volume requirement for 2020. Implementation of the RFS has been complex, and compliance with some of its parts has been challenging, according to some stakeholders.\n\nTo summarize, the Renewable Fuel Standard is a program aimed at increasing the use of renewable fuels in transportation, but its implementation has faced challenges. The program sets annual volume requirements for four categories of renewable fuels, and the EPA has used its waiver authority to reduce the statutory volume requirements. The 2019 final rule for the RFS set volume requirements that are less than the volumes called for in statute but greater than the previous year's volumes. The rule also set the biomass-based diesel volume requirement for 2020. Implementation of the RFS has been complex and challenging for some stakeholders.", "evaluation": "rouge"}
{"query": "Please help me summarize this government report.", "gt": "Concurrent receipt refers to the simultaneous receipt of two types of federal monetary benefits: military retired pay and Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) disability compensation. Prior to 2004, existing laws and regulations dictated that a military retiree could not receive two payments from federal agencies for the same purpose. As a result, military retirees with physical disabilities recognized by the VA would have their military retired pay offset or reduced dollar-for-dollar by the amount of their nontaxable VA compensation. Legislative activity on the issue of concurrent receipt began in the late 1980s and culminated in the provision for Combat-Related Special Compensation (CRSC) in the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003 (P.L. 107-314). Since then, Congress has added Concurrent Retirement and Disability Payments (CRDP) for those retirees with a disability rated at 50% or greater, extended concurrent receipt to additional eligible populations, and further refined and clarified the program.\nThere are two common criteria that define eligibility for concurrent receipt: (1) all recipients must be military retirees and (2) they must also be eligible for VA disability compensation. An eligible retiree cannot receive both CRDP and CRSC. The retiree must choose whichever is most financially advantageous to him or her and may change the type of benefit to be received during an annual open season.\nIn FY2017, approximately one-third of the retired military population was receiving either CRSC or CRDP at a cost of $12.4 billion. Nevertheless, there are also military retirees who receive VA disability compensation but are not eligible for concurrent receipt. Determining whether to make some or all of this population eligible for concurrent receipt remains a point of contention in Congress. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has estimated that to extend benefits to all veterans who would be eligible for both disability benefits and military retired pay would cost $30 billion from 2015 to 2024. In 2016, CBO estimated that eliminating concurrent receipt would save the government $139 billion between 2018 and 2026.", "prompt": "[INST]<<SYS>>\nNow you are given a very long document. Please follow the instruction after this document. These instructions may include summarizing a document, answering questions based on the document, or writing a required paragraph. \n<</SYS>>\n\nDocument is as follows. {} Instruction: {} \nAnswer this question with 330 words.[/INST]", "llama2-13b-chat-4k_pred": "  Sure, I'd be happy to help you summarize this government report!\n\nThe report discusses the concurrent receipt program, which allows military retirees to receive both military retired pay and Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) disability compensation. The program has been in place since 1941, but the eligibility criteria and benefits have evolved over time. Currently, retirees with a permanent DOD disability rating of 30% or greater, as well as those who are retired under the Temporary Early Retirement Authority (TERA), are eligible for CRSC.\n\nThe report also explains the difference between DOD and VA disability benefits. DOD disability retirement is based on the degree of disability, while VA disability compensation is based on the average loss of earning power. The VA also provides tax-free disability compensation, which makes it more desirable for retirees to receive VA benefits.\n\nTo address the issue of double dipping, where retirees receive both military retired pay and VA disability compensation, the report suggests several options for Congress to consider. One option is to expand the concurrent receipt program to include all retirees with a service-connected disability, regardless of the percentage of disability. Another option is to provide a special compensation to retirees who are eligible for CRSC but do not receive VA disability compensation.\n\nThe report also discusses the Integrated Disability Evaluation System (IDES), which is a joint DOD and VA program that streamlines the disability evaluation process. IDES allows for a single medical examination and disability rating, which can reduce the duplication of effort and improve the efficiency of the disability evaluation process.\n\nOverall, the report provides a comprehensive overview of the concurrent receipt program and the options available for Congress to address the issue of double dipping. It also highlights the importance of improving the efficiency of the disability evaluation process through initiatives like IDES.", "evaluation": "rouge"}
{"query": "Please help me summarize this government report.", "gt": "In recent decades, the process for appointing judges to the U.S. circuit courts of appeals and the U.S. district courts has been of continuing Senate interest. The President and the Senate share responsibility for making these appointments. Pursuant to the Constitution's Appointments Clause, the President nominates persons to fill federal judgeships, with the appointment of each nominee also requiring Senate confirmation. Although not mentioned in the Constitution, an important role is also played midway in the appointment process by the Senate Judiciary Committee.\nThe statistics presented in this report reflect congressional interest in issues related to the confirmation process for lower federal court nominees. Statistics are provided for each stage of the nomination and confirmation process\u2014from the frequency of judicial vacancies that require a presidential nomination for a judgeship to be filled to the frequency of roll call votes (rather than the use of unanimous consent or voice votes) to confirm judicial nominees. Statistics are also provided related to the length of the confirmation process itself. Additional statistics provided relate to the demographic characteristics of circuit and district court nominees confirmed by the Senate.\nThe period covered by the report, 1977 through 2018, includes every Administration from the Carter presidency to the first two years of the Trump presidency. This period also includes every Congress from the 95th (1977-1978) through the 115th (2017-2018).\nBecause the statistics presented for the Trump presidency are for the first two years of his Administration (while statistics for other presidencies reflect each President's entire Administration, whether four or eight years), the statistics presented for the Trump presidency may be different at the conclusion of his Administration.\nThis report will be next updated by CRS at the conclusion of the 116th Congress.", "prompt": "[INST]<<SYS>>\nNow you are given a very long document. Please follow the instruction after this document. These instructions may include summarizing a document, answering questions based on the document, or writing a required paragraph. \n<</SYS>>\n\nDocument is as follows. {} Instruction: {} \nAnswer this question with 286 words.[/INST]", "llama2-13b-chat-4k_pred": "  The report provides statistics and analysis of the appointment and confirmation process of U.S. circuit and district court judges from 1977 to 2018. It focuses on the U.S. circuit courts of appeals and U.S. district courts, excluding the Supreme Court and other specialized courts. The report highlights the following key points:\n\n1. Vacancies: The percentage of vacant circuit and district court judgeships varies over time, with a median of 8.9% for circuit courts and 7.2% for district courts.\n2. Nominees confirmed: The number and percentage of judicial nominees confirmed during a presidency or Congress influence the number of vacancies. Factors such as the frequency of judicial departures, the speed of the nomination process, and the political party of the President and Senate play a role.\n3. Unified party control: Congresses with unified party control (i.e., the same party controlling the presidency and Senate) tend to have a greater number and percentage of circuit and district court nominees confirmed.\n4. Multiple nominations: It has become more common for a President to nominate an individual multiple times prior to final Senate action, increasing the percentage of nominees confirmed who were nominated more than once.\n5. Circuit court nominees: President George W. Bush had the highest percentage of confirmed circuit court nominees who were nominated more than once (45.9%), while President Obama had the highest percentage of confirmed district court nominees nominated more than once (38.8%).\n\nOverall, the report provides a comprehensive overview of the appointment and confirmation process of U.S. circuit and district court judges, highlighting trends and factors that influence the process.", "evaluation": "rouge"}
{"query": "Please help me summarize this government report.", "gt": "Section 420 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (P.L. 93-288, hereinafter the Stafford Act) authorizes the President to \"declare\" a Fire Management Assistance Grant (FMAG). In the interest of saving time, the authority to make the declaration has been delegated to the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA's) Regional Administrators. Once issued, the FMAG declaration authorizes various forms of federal fire suppression assistance such as the provision of equipment, personnel, and grants to state, local, and tribal governments for the control, management, and mitigation of any fire on certain public or private forest land or grassland that might become a major disaster. This federal assistance requires a cost-sharing component such that state, local, and tribal governments are responsible for 25% of the expenses.\nThis report answers frequently asked questions about FMAGs. This report will be updated as events warrant.", "prompt": "[INST]<<SYS>>\nNow you are given a very long document. Please follow the instruction after this document. These instructions may include summarizing a document, answering questions based on the document, or writing a required paragraph. \n<</SYS>>\n\nDocument is as follows. {} Instruction: {} \nAnswer this question with 143 words.[/INST]", "llama2-13b-chat-4k_pred": "  Sure! Here is a summary of the report in 143 words:\n\nThe Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) provides Fire Management Assistance Grants (FMAGs) to states and tribes to assist with fighting wildfires. FMAGs are available when a fire is threatening lives and property, and the state or tribe has determined that federal assistance is necessary. To be eligible for an FMAG, the fire must meet certain thresholds based on factors such as the size of the fire, the number of people affected, and the potential economic impact. FEMA has the discretion to deny requests for FMAGs, and appeals can be made in writing to the FEMA Headquarters Office. FMAGs are funded through the Disaster Relief Fund (DRF), and the state or tribe is responsible for a 25% cost-share. FMAGs can be used for eligible expenses such as equipment, supplies, and overtime for firefighters.", "evaluation": "rouge"}
{"query": "Please help me summarize this government report.", "gt": "Senators and Representatives are frequently asked to support or sponsor proposals recognizing historic events and outstanding achievements by individuals or institutions. Among the various forms of recognition that Congress bestows, the Congressional Gold Medal is often considered the most distinguished. Through this venerable tradition\u2014the occasional commissioning of individually struck gold medals in its name\u2014Congress has expressed public gratitude on behalf of the nation for distinguished contributions for more than two centuries. Since 1776, this award, which initially was bestowed on military leaders, has also been given to such diverse individuals as Sir Winston Churchill and Bob Hope, George Washington and Robert Frost, Joe Louis and Mother Teresa of Calcutta.\nCongressional gold medal legislation generally has a specific format. Once a gold medal is authorized, it follows a specific process for design, minting, and awarding. This process includes consultation and recommendations by the Citizens Coinage Advisory Commission (CCAC) and the U.S. Commission of Fine Arts (CFA), pursuant to any statutory instructions, before the Secretary of the Treasury makes the final decision on a gold medal's design. Once the medal has been struck, a ceremony will often be scheduled to formally award the medal to the recipient.\nIn recent years, the number of gold medals awarded has increased, and some have expressed interest in examining the gold medal awarding process. Should Congress want to make such changes, several individual and institutional options might be available. The individual options include decisions made by Members of Congress as to what individual or groups might be honored; potential specification of gold medal design elements; and where gold medals for groups might be housed once the award is made. The institutional options could include House, Senate, or committee rules for the consideration of gold medal legislation and whether statutory standards on the number of gold medals issued per year or per Congress might be established for gold medals.", "prompt": "[INST]<<SYS>>\nNow you are given a very long document. Please follow the instruction after this document. These instructions may include summarizing a document, answering questions based on the document, or writing a required paragraph. \n<</SYS>>\n\nDocument is as follows. {} Instruction: {} \nAnswer this question with 312 words.[/INST]", "llama2-13b-chat-4k_pred": "  The document provides a detailed overview of the history and current practices surrounding the Congressional Gold Medal, which is awarded to individuals or groups in recognition of their outstanding contributions to the United States. The report outlines the origins of the medal, which dates back to the late 1700s, and highlights the various individuals and groups who have been awarded the medal over the years.\n\nThe report also discusses the process for authorizing and creating a Congressional Gold Medal, including the referral of legislation to the House Committee on Financial Services or the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. The report notes that there are no permanent statutory provisions specifically relating to the creation of Congressional Gold Medals, and that the process for considering legislation varies between the House and Senate.\n\nIn addition, the report provides information on the design and striking of the medal, including the specifications for awarding the medal and the instructions for its design and striking. The report also discusses the authorization of appropriations and the proceeds from the sale of duplicates.\n\nFinally, the report raises several issues for Congress to consider, including choices Members may make about which people or groups might be honored and whether specific design elements might be specified statutorily. Institutional issues might include committee or chamber rules on the consideration of Congressional Gold Medals and creating standards for the issuance of gold medals.\n\nOverall, the report provides a comprehensive overview of the Congressional Gold Medal and the process for awarding it, and raises important considerations for Congress to address in the future.", "evaluation": "rouge"}
{"query": "Please help me summarize this government report.", "gt": "House rules govern the length of time legislative measures must be available to Members before being considered on the floor. For measures reported from committee, a draft of the committee report must have been available for 72 hours. Conference reports must also have been available for 72 hours and special rules for considering measures for one legislative day. Bills and joint resolutions that have not been reported by committee, and therefore are not accompanied by a written report, may also not be considered on the House floor unless the measure has been available for 72 hours. Proposed committee reports, unreported bills and joint resolutions, conference reports, and joint explanatory statements are considered available under these rules if they are publicly available in electronic form on a website designated by the Committee on House Administration for this purpose, http://docs.house.gov.\nThe House has several means by which it can choose to waive these availability requirements and call up, debate, and vote on a measure in a single calendar day even if the text of the measure was not made available prior to consideration. These include (1) considering a measure under the suspension of the rules procedure or by unanimous consent, (2) adopting a special rule that waives the 72-hour requirement, (3) adopting a special rule that waives the one-day requirement for another special rule, and (4) convening a second legislative day on the same calendar day. Waiving availability requirements allows the House to act quickly when necessary, such as near the end of a session.", "prompt": "[INST]<<SYS>>\nNow you are given a very long document. Please follow the instruction after this document. These instructions may include summarizing a document, answering questions based on the document, or writing a required paragraph. \n<</SYS>>\n\nDocument is as follows. {} Instruction: {} \nAnswer this question with 253 words.[/INST]", "llama2-13b-chat-4k_pred": "  The document outlines the rules and procedures for availability requirements in the House of Representatives, specifically regarding the consideration of bills, resolutions, and conference reports. The rules require that draft committee reports and unreported bills and joint resolutions be available for a certain period before being considered on the floor. Conference committee reports and accompanying joint explanatory statements must also be made publicly available for 72 hours before consideration. The document explains the exceptions to these rules, such as during the last six days of a session, and the procedures for waiving the availability requirements.\n\nThe House can waive the availability requirements by unanimous consent, suspending the rules, or reporting a special rule that waives the one-day layover requirement. The Rules Committee may report a special rule that waives the 72-hour availability requirement for a resolution, bill, or conference report. The House can also create or extend a legislative day by convening two legislative days in a single calendar day or by agreeing to a motion to adjourn for a brief period.\n\nThe document highlights the importance of waiving availability requirements near the end of a session, as the House typically does not agree to an adjournment date far in advance. Special rules that waive availability requirements are sometimes referred to as \"same-day rules\" or \"martial law\" rules. The document concludes by summarizing the rules and procedures for availability requirements in the House of Representatives.", "evaluation": "rouge"}
{"query": "Please help me summarize this government report.", "gt": "Although states have a great deal of autonomy in how they establish and run their unemployment insurance programs, federal law requires states to pay Unemployment Compensation (UC) benefits promptly as provided under state law. During some recessions, current taxes and reserve balances may be insufficient to cover state obligations for UC benefits. States may borrow funds from the federal loan account within the Unemployment Trust Fund (UTF) to meet UC benefit obligations.\nThis report summarizes how insolvent states may borrow funds from the UTF loan account to meet their UC benefit obligations. It includes the manner in which states must repay federal UTF loans. It also provides details on how the UTF loans may trigger potential interest accrual and explains the timetable for increased net Federal Unemployment Taxes Act (FUTA) taxes if the funds are not repaid promptly.\nOutstanding loans listed by state may be found at the Department of Labor's (DOL's) website, https://oui.doleta.gov/unemploy/budget.asp.", "prompt": "[INST]<<SYS>>\nNow you are given a very long document. Please follow the instruction after this document. These instructions may include summarizing a document, answering questions based on the document, or writing a required paragraph. \n<</SYS>>\n\nDocument is as follows. {} Instruction: {} \nAnswer this question with 154 words.[/INST]", "llama2-13b-chat-4k_pred": "  Sure! Here's a summary of the government report in 154 words:\n\nThe document discusses the Unemployment Compensation (UC) program, which is a joint federal-state program that provides financial assistance to unemployed workers. The program is funded by federal payroll taxes and state payroll taxes. During economic downturns, the program's funding increases, and states may have insufficient funds to pay benefits. To address this, states can borrow funds from the federal loan account within the Unemployment Trust Fund (UTF) or from outside sources. If a state borrows from the UTF, it must repay the loan with interest. The document also discusses the credit reduction mechanism for states with outstanding loans, which can increase the federal tax rate for employers in those states.", "evaluation": "rouge"}
{"query": "Please help me summarize this government report.", "gt": "Since the 1950s and the creation of the first federal student aid programs, one aim of federal higher education policy has been to promote access to postsecondary education, particularly for students with financial need. In recent years, the federal government has annually made available more than $100 billion in federal grants, loans, and work-study funds to millions of students to help cover the cost of higher education. As Congress continues to focus on expanding access to postsecondary education through federal student aid policies, understanding various characteristics of the population enrolling in postsecondary education may be useful for policy deliberations.\nThis report focuses on the income of the undergraduate student population. It analyzes (1) how the income distribution of the undergraduate population has changed over time; (2) the relationship between student income and certain student demographics, such as race and dependency status; and (3) how the income distribution of the undergraduate population compares with that of the population of persons who do not have a postsecondary degree. Major findings presented in this report include the following:\nThe number and proportion of low-income students has increased in more recent years, even as total enrollment has decreased. Low-income student enrollment has increased at a faster pace than the nation's population of low-income persons. The majority of students enrolling in postsecondary education have incomes below 200% of the poverty guidelines. Independent undergraduate students who have sometimes been labeled as \"non-traditional\" constitute a large portion of enrolled postsecondary students and tend to have lower income than more \"traditional\" students. Nonwhite students account for nearly 50% of the undergraduate student population, and they tend to have lower income than white students. The majority of low-income students attend community colleges and a disproportionately high share attend private for-profit institutions.\nThe changing composition of the student population could have implications for federal policies designed to promote access to postsecondary education. In particular, policymakers face consideration of whether federal policies could play a role in encouraging students at various income levels to enroll at the highest performing types of schools. Policymakers also face consideration of the extent to which Higher Education Act programs are designed to support the success of non-traditional and minority students.", "prompt": "[INST]<<SYS>>\nNow you are given a very long document. Please follow the instruction after this document. These instructions may include summarizing a document, answering questions based on the document, or writing a required paragraph. \n<</SYS>>\n\nDocument is as follows. {} Instruction: {} \nAnswer this question with 365 words.[/INST]", "llama2-13b-chat-4k_pred": " The report focuses on the income of undergraduate students in the United States, using data from the National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS) and the Current Population Survey Annual Social and Economic Supplement (CPS ASEC). The report explores the relationship between student income and certain demographics such as race and dependency status, and compares the income distribution of students with the national population.\n\nKey findings include:\n\n1. The number of undergraduate students enrolled in postsecondary education has generally increased over the past two decades, with a peak of 23.0 million in AY2011-2012 and a drop to 19.3 million in AY2015-2016.\n2. The income composition of the undergraduate population has changed over time, with a significant increase in the number of students with income below 100% of the poverty guidelines. In AY2011-2012, 31% of undergraduate students had incomes below 100% of the poverty guideline, and 50% had incomes below 200%.\n3. Low-income students are enrolling at higher levels than previously observed, with a 70% increase in the number of students with income below 100% of the poverty guidelines between AY2007-2008 and AY2011-2012.\n4. Enrollment of students in the middle and upper income categories has declined, with a 25% drop in enrollment of students with income between 200% and 499% of the poverty guidelines between AY2007-2008 and AY2015-2016.\n5. The report highlights the importance of considering the income of undergraduate students in federal higher education policy, particularly in the context of the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act (HEA).\n\nOverall, the report suggests that low-income students are becoming more represented in postsecondary education, while middle and upper-income students are enrolling at lower levels. This shift in the income composition of undergraduate students has implications for federal policy and the", "evaluation": "rouge"}
{"query": "Please help me summarize this government report.", "gt": "Money-bail systems allow criminal defendants to avoid prison while awaiting trial by posting a bond set by a fee schedule. The impact of money-bail systems on indigent criminal defendants, however, has prompted legislative interest in and legal challenges to such systems, particularly when the bail does not reflect an individual's specific circumstances, such as potential flight risk or public safety. Critics of money-bail systems assert that fee schedules unduly burden indigent defendants, while supporters argue that fee schedules provide uniformity and ensure that defendants appear at trial.\nSeveral states and municipalities have reformed their bail systems. Voters in New Mexico approved a constitutional amendment that allows judges to deny bail to defendants considered exceptionally dangerous, but otherwise permits pretrial release of nondangerous indigent offenders who cannot make bail. Other jurisdictions have altered or eliminated their money-bail systems in recent years, including cities in Alabama, Georgia, and Maryland.\nCourts have heard legal challenges regarding whether state or local money-bail systems comport with the Constitution's Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses. The Supreme Court has established that the Constitution provides certain protections to indigents during sentencing and postconviction, including ensuring that an indigent's failure to pay a fine cannot result in an automatic revocation of probation or imprisonment beyond the statutory maximum term. The Court, however, has not addressed these rights in the bail context. Applying the rational basis standard, some courts have found money-bail systems that reasonably ensure a defendant's subsequent court appearance to be constitutional. Other courts have indicated that bail systems that detain indigent criminal defendants pretrial, without considering their ability to pay, may be unconstitutional.", "prompt": "[INST]<<SYS>>\nNow you are given a very long document. Please follow the instruction after this document. These instructions may include summarizing a document, answering questions based on the document, or writing a required paragraph. \n<</SYS>>\n\nDocument is as follows. {} Instruction: {} \nAnswer this question with 267 words.[/INST]", "llama2-13b-chat-4k_pred": "  Sure, I can help you with that! Here's a summary of the report in 267 words:\n\nThe report discusses the constitutional considerations related to bail and indigence, specifically the Eighth Amendment's Excessive Bail Clause and the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments' Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses. The report highlights that money-bail systems allow defendants to avoid jail while awaiting trial by posting a bond according to a fee schedule, but this can be difficult for indigent defendants who face more difficulty paying bail than non-indigent defendants. The report also mentions that the Supreme Court has never recognized a right to bail as absolute and has held that the government may have legitimate interests in limiting pretrial release, even for non-capital crimes.\n\nThe report then discusses the constitutional implications of indigence for criminal defendants, including the Supreme Court's holding in Bearden v. United States that imprisonment solely because of indigence constitutes invidious discrimination and is constitutionally impermissible. The report also mentions that the Supreme Court has not recognized indigence as a suspect class warranting strict scrutiny analysis.\n\nFinally, the report highlights recent lower court cases concerning bail and indigents, including cases where the court has used the rational basis standard to examine whether a bond requirement would rationally and reasonably ensure the defendant's appearance at trial or serve another legitimate government interest.\n\nOverall, the report provides an overview of the constitutional considerations related to bail and indigence, highlighting the challenges faced by indigent defendants in the bail system and the Supreme Court's jurisprudence on the matter.", "evaluation": "rouge"}
{"query": "Please help me summarize this government report.", "gt": "This report focuses on previous activity in Congress regarding high profile incidents of sexual assault in the military during the summer 2013 through 2016. Included are separate sections on the official responses related to these incidents by the Department of Defense (DOD), the Obama Administration, and Congress including legislation during the 113th (2013-2014) Congress and 114th Congress (2015-2016). The last section is a resource guide for sources in this report and related materials on sexual assault and prevention during this period. This report will not be updated and supersedes CRS Report R43168, Military Sexual Assault: Chronology of Activity in Congress and Related Resources.\nFor current information regarding Congress and issues on sexual assault in the military, see CRS Report R44944, Military Sexual Assault: A Framework for Congressional Oversight, by Kristy N. Kamarck and Barbara Salazar Torreon. For legislative initiatives in the 115th Congress, see CRS Report R44923, FY2018 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues, by Kristy N. Kamarck, Lawrence Kapp, and Barbara Salazar Torreon and CRS Report R45343, FY2019 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues, by Bryce H. P. Mendez et al.", "prompt": "[INST]<<SYS>>\nNow you are given a very long document. Please follow the instruction after this document. These instructions may include summarizing a document, answering questions based on the document, or writing a required paragraph. \n<</SYS>>\n\nDocument is as follows. {} Instruction: {} \nAnswer this question with 186 words.[/INST]", "llama2-13b-chat-4k_pred": "  The report outlines the U.S. Department of Defense's (DOD) efforts to address sexual assault incidents in the military from 2013 to 2016. It includes information on the DOD's and the Obama Administration's actions, congressional actions, and legislation related to sexual assault prevention and response. The report highlights the establishment of the Response Systems to Adult Sexual Assault Crimes Panel, the review of initial military training, and the implementation of new series of actions to further DOD's sexual assault and prevention efforts. Additionally, it mentions the creation of the Safe HelpRoom, a Sexual Assault Support Service for the DOD community, and the investment in specially trained sexual assault investigators. The report also notes the suspension of commanders who failed to report or investigate allegations of sexual assault and the adoption of new measures to eliminate sexual assault from within the ranks.", "evaluation": "rouge"}
{"query": "Please help me summarize this government report.", "gt": "The Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act (LHWCA) is a federal workers' compensation program that covers certain private-sector maritime workers. Firms that employ these workers are required to purchase workers' compensation or self-insure and are responsible for providing medical and disability benefits to covered workers who are injured or become ill on the job and survivors benefits to the families of covered workers who die on the job. The LHWCA is administered by the Department of Labor (DOL), and all benefit costs are paid by employers and their insurance carriers. In 2016, more than $1.4 billion in LHWCA benefits were paid to beneficiaries.\nCongress has extended the LHWCA provisions to cover workers outside of the maritime industry, such as overseas government contractors and civilian employees of military post exchanges. As part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), persons who repair recreational vessels of any size were added to the LHWCA exemption list. In 2011, the DOL implemented this provision; since then, those regulations have proven controversial and numerous bills have been introduced to modify the regulatory definition to increase the number of workers exempted from the LHWCA.\nThe LHWCA pays for all medical care associated with a covered injury or illness. Disability benefits are based on a worker's pre-injury wage, and, unlike comparable state workers' compensation benefits, are adjusted annually to reflect national wage growth.", "prompt": "[INST]<<SYS>>\nNow you are given a very long document. Please follow the instruction after this document. These instructions may include summarizing a document, answering questions based on the document, or writing a required paragraph. \n<</SYS>>\n\nDocument is as follows. {} Instruction: {} \nAnswer this question with 229 words.[/INST]", "llama2-13b-chat-4k_pred": "  Sure! Here is a summary of the report in 229 words:\n\nThe Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act (LHWCA) provides workers' compensation coverage for private-sector employees engaged in longshore, harbor, or other maritime occupations on or adjacent to the navigable waters of the United States. The LHWCA is administered by the Department of Labor (DOL) and provides benefits to injured, sick, and deceased workers and their families. Covered workers include maritime employees, except for those excluded by statute, such as masters and crew members of vessels, and employees of the federal government. The LHWCA has been amended several times to extend coverage to occupations outside the original scope of the law, and employers may either purchase private insurance or self-insure to provide workers' compensation coverage to their employees. The DOL is responsible for authorizing insurance carriers and self-insurance, and the Special Fund is used to provide benefits in cases where the responsible employer or insurance carrier cannot pay. The LHWCA provides medical benefits, disability benefits, and survivors benefits to covered workers and their families. Vocational rehabilitation services are also provided to assist covered workers in returning to employment.", "evaluation": "rouge"}
{"query": "Please help me summarize this government report.", "gt": "The United States Fire Administration (USFA)\u2014which includes the National Fire Academy (NFA)\u2014is currently housed within the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The objective of the USFA is to significantly reduce the nation's loss of life from fire, while also achieving a reduction in property loss and nonfatal injury due to fire.\nThe Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2019 (P.L. 116-6) provided $45.679 million for USFA, including $1.5 million in the FEMA Procurement, Construction, and Improvements account for the National Emergency Training Center. For FY2020, the Administration requested $46.605 million, which includes $1.5 million transferred from the Procurement, Construction, and Improvements account for NETC campus renovations. The budget proposal would be a $1 million increase over the FY2019 level; the increase would fund further improvements to NETC facilities. The budget proposal does not include funding for State Fire Training Assistance.\nOn January 3, 2018, the President signed the United States Fire Administration, AFG, and SAFER Program Reauthorization Act of 2017 (P.L. 115-98). P.L. 115-98 extends the USFA authorization through FY2023. The authorization levels are the same as in the previous authorization: $76,490,890 each year for FY2017 through FY2023.\nMeanwhile, concerns over the federal budget deficit could impact future funding levels for the USFA. Debate over the USFA budget has focused on whether the USFA is receiving an appropriate level of funding to accomplish its mission, given that appropriations for USFA have consistently been well below the agency's authorized level. Additionally, an ongoing issue is the viability and status of the USFA and the National Fire Academy within the Department of Homeland Security.", "prompt": "[INST]<<SYS>>\nNow you are given a very long document. Please follow the instruction after this document. These instructions may include summarizing a document, answering questions based on the document, or writing a required paragraph. \n<</SYS>>\n\nDocument is as follows. {} Instruction: {} \nAnswer this question with 266 words.[/INST]", "llama2-13b-chat-4k_pred": "  The United States Fire Administration (USFA) is a government agency under the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) that aims to provide leadership, coordination, and support for fire prevention and control, training, and emergency medical services activities. The USFA was established in 1978, and its mission is to significantly reduce the nation's loss of life from fire while achieving a reduction in property loss and nonfatal injury due to fire.\n\nThe USFA has several programs, including data collection, public education and awareness, research and technology, and training. The National Fire Data Center (NFDC) collects and analyzes data on fire incidents, and the National Fire Academy (NFA) provides educational opportunities for fire service personnel. The USFA also conducts research on fire detection, suppression, and notification systems, as well as issues related to firefighter and emergency responder health and safety.\n\nThe USFA receives its annual appropriation through the House and Senate Appropriations Subcommittees on Homeland Security. The FY2019 Consolidated Appropriations Act provided $45.679 million for USFA, including $1.5 million for annual capital improvement of the National Emergency Training Center. The Administration's FY2020 budget proposal requested $46.605 million for USFA, which includes $1.5 million transferred from the Procurement, Construction, and Improvements account for NETC campus renovations.\n\nThe U.S. Fire Administration Reauthorization Act of 2008 authorized the USFA at $70 million for FY2009, $72.1 million for FY2010, $74.263 million for FY2011, and $76.491 million for FY2012. The act also required the USFA to develop new firefighting technologies and standards in coordination with private sector standards groups and federal, state, and local agencies. Additionally, the act directed the USFA to provide training on incidents occurring in the wildfire-urban interface, multijurisdictional fires, hazardous materials incidents, and advanced emergency medical services.", "evaluation": "rouge"}
